R v Guy - [2018] ACTSC 270

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Guy
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 270
Hearing Date:	14 September 2018
DecisionDate:	14 September 2018
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 months and two weeks. Fined $500.00. Disqualified from driving for three years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm – drive motor vehicle without consent – objective seriousness of the offences – sentencing purposes – general deterrence – specific deterrence – separate charges treated as aggravating features to the principal offence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 29(4) Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) ss 7, 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 318(2) Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) s 20(1) Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 32(1)(a) Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017 (ACT) s 56(1)(a) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) s 5C Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68E
Cases Cited:	Chifuntwe v Gardiner [2012] ACTSC 136 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80 R v Barton [2016] ACTSC 162; 77 MVR 97 R vRichardson [2016] ACTSC 133
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Dillon Matthew Guy (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K McCann (Crown) Ms B Dunne (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 208 of 2018; SCC 209 of 2018

Murrell CJ

Introduction

The offender is to be sentenced for two offences that occurred on 20 May 2018:

(a)Culpable driving by negligence (driving at an excessive speed) causing grievous bodily harm to Ms Richards. This is an offence against s 29(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and a minimum disqualification period of 24 months.
(b)Drive a motor vehicle without consent. This is an offence against s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and/or fine.

The following charges relating to the same incident were transferred under s 68E of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT):

(a)As a repeat offender, drive a motor vehicle and fail to comply as soon as practicable with a police officer’s signal to stop. This is an offence against s 5C of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment and/or a fine and 12 months’ disqualification.
(b)As a repeat offender, drive while disqualified. This is an offence against s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment and/or a fine and 24 months’ disqualification.
(c)As a repeat offender, drive with a prescribed drug in his blood. This is an offence against s 20(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) which carries a maximum penalty of three months’…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Guy

Details

AGLC: R v Guy [2018] ACTSC 270
Case: [2018] ACTSC 270
Decision Date: 14 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Guy, the respondent was convicted for driving a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, causing grievous bodily harm to the owner. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offences, the principles of general and specific deterrence, and the need to address the respondent's culpability.

The legal issues involved assessing the gravity of the offences, including the factors that aggravated the principal offence. The court considered the objective seriousness of the culpable driving, which caused grievous bodily harm, and the respondent's lack of consent from the vehicle owner. Additionally, the court had to weigh the principles of general and specific deterrence in the sentencing process. The court determined that the separate charges should be treated as aggravating features to the principal offence.

The court found that the respondent's actions warranted a substantial sentence. The court sentenced the respondent to two years and three months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 months and two weeks. The court also imposed a fine of $500.00 and disqualified the respondent from driving for three years. The court's decision was based on the need to deter both the respondent and the wider community from engaging in similar conduct, as well as the objective seriousness of the offences committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 months and two weeks.

Fined $500.00.

Disqualified from driving for three years.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.